[aur-general] Tarball Guidelines

Ray Rashif schiv at archlinux.org
Tue Dec 7 18:47:54 CET 2010

On 7 December 2010 12:23, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the official repositories we don't include these files generally.

We do, when needed.

> So if we're going to say that AUR PKGBUILD's should not
> include *.desktop files then we might as well say that AUR
> PKGBUILD's should not include patches.

Nobody said that! :O

> And if we're going to go with this level of communism then we might as well
> say that -svn, -git, etc. PKGBUILD's don't belong in [unsupported] because a
> development branch is basically a series of unofficially released patches.
> And if we do that we might as well scrap the whole AUR.

Yes, such nonsense!

> On the other hand for [core], [extra], and [community] users expect a high
> level of standardization and QA. Therefore in my opinion things like
> *.desktop files and patches NEVER belong there except when critically
> necessary.
> Let me summarize: [unsupported] is not official so we should only suggest
> not enforce; [core], [extra], [community] are official and we should enforce
> our policy to the fullest extent. --Kaiting.

I don't think there's a need to enforce anything here. Likewise..

On 7 December 2010 05:53, keenerd <keenerd at gmail.com> wrote:
> But while we are running the numbers to determine best
> practices.....
> grep -r '|| return 1' /var/abs/ | wc -l == 6165

This is something like "Hey, pacman has this cool feature for some
time now to detect any kind of error. So the next time you update your
builds, remember that you no longer need to return 1."

It's not something to "enforce", you update as and when you can. KISS.

All we really need right now is a reminder to check if included files
are really necessary.

More information about the aur-general mailing list